"You'll loose two stones in strength". It reminds me of the Go proverb "Try to lose your first 100 games quickly." You have to lose a lot of games before you start to see the moves at any level.
when you played Yilun Yang was he playing Simultaneous games or was he just playing you? Do you think he was trying his hardest or was this a teaching game?
I keep getting better in Chess and weaker in Go because Chess has more general principles to follow while Go has a bunch of specifics. I need a general principle, I fall apart trying to implement something this specific like knowing what to do on the right side.
It's possible Chess is better. Go may seem at first like a more intuitive and "mysterious" game, as some claim that allegedly it is better because the computers have more difficulty solving it. But Go is still formulaic. I've played Chess since childhood and eventually got bored with it. But I've studied Chess openings and some famous games, and I think at higher levels Chess is also as formulaic as Go. You pretty much can learn most of the known game openings, defenses, and strategies, that generally repeat themselves like joseki in go.
I think I'm at the point in chess and go where if I want to get better I'll have to do a lot of memorization. If he can't figure out where to aim the direction of development at his rank how the hell am I supposed to? I just got crushed at a game of go because I couldn't figure out all the subtleties of the variations.
43:10 What happens if black plays atari on 5-14, white connects, then trumpet connector? Also I was waiting for someone to suggest taisha in the top left.
They get 1p by pass the professional exam. Then pro dan get level up (2p,3p,etc) by winning pro league/tournament. So once they get pro, actually they are all about the same level (in amateur scale). Even 10p will find it hard to give 2 handicap game to 1p (sometime they do play reversed/no komi). There was an 2p or 3p whom playing internet go. I am sure he winning about 8 of 10 games against the strongest amateur (7-9d)
I don't see a 10p losing to anything lower than 6p without being careless, haha, but I'm sure it's happened! I don't know much about the game, but it's very fun to learn
At twenty minutes that bottom right corner looks huge and his shape on the side looks weak and under utilized. Just save the pressing stone and you're good it would seem.
@1:00:45 you talk about a lot of points in the mid low part for black. Sure, in the great scheme of things, you did prevented white from getting massive there. But i dont see the points while its white's turn. I see S13 so bright that blinds me. I dont think black dies there, i dont know, im not that advanced, but i give black 5 points at the base with decent play at most.
I hope Mr.Sibicky doesn't get offended, but he acts kind of arrogantly when presenting these lectures. Needs to be more humble, and to sound less like a know-it-all.
+StopFear I find his lectures fascinating and precise, if he did these lectures formally, I would feel like i'm sitting in the class and it would be so boring
I find this comment really strange. Nick doesn't seem even the slightest bit arrogant to me. Obviously, he's the teacher here -- it's a matter of fact that he's a significantly stronger player than the other people in the room, and that's why everyone is there. If someone suggests a move, it's pretty much his job in this situation to point out whether it's good or bad and to explain why. I think he does a really decent job of that. He's always willing to look at a move that a student suggests and show what would happen. In this video, he's also presenting teaching games which he had with Yilun Yang who is again much stronger than he is. He's relating the review of those games, so if he says that a move of his was strong, he not only has his explanation of why, but he's also discussed it with a 7 dan pro beforehand. Nick points out plenty of his own mistakes here too, so it doesn't really make sense how one could call it arrogant.
"You'll loose two stones in strength". It reminds me of the Go proverb "Try to lose your first 100 games quickly." You have to lose a lot of games before you start to see the moves at any level.
Oh man, I saw the Seattle Go Center and was living in the U District before I played go. Wish I had played go when I lived down there.
Nick's lecture is the best! He is really good at engaging the learners.
9 years later the 1st "mistake" is actually katago s 2nd choice equal to the nobi on the 3nd line
Excellent lecture! Thank you very much!
This is such a good lecture! Thanks!
I always find them really helpfull and interesting. never can apply all that. Need to play a lot more.
when you played Yilun Yang was he playing Simultaneous games or was he just playing you? Do you think he was trying his hardest or was this a teaching game?
who cares ?
I keep getting better in Chess and weaker in Go because Chess has more general principles to follow while Go has a bunch of specifics. I need a general principle, I fall apart trying to implement something this specific like knowing what to do on the right side.
It's possible Chess is better. Go may seem at first like a more intuitive and "mysterious" game, as some claim that allegedly it is better because the computers have more difficulty solving it. But Go is still formulaic. I've played Chess since childhood and eventually got bored with it. But I've studied Chess openings and some famous games, and I think at higher levels Chess is also as formulaic as Go. You pretty much can learn most of the known game openings, defenses, and strategies, that generally repeat themselves like joseki in go.
I think I'm at the point in chess and go where if I want to get better I'll have to do a lot of memorization.
If he can't figure out where to aim the direction of development at his rank how the hell am I supposed to? I just got crushed at a game of go because I couldn't figure out all the subtleties of the variations.
Padraic54 I think you should be able to reach ~2200 in chess without memorizing things.
With tactics practice or strategy?
@@StopFear Do you know if there is a website where I can learn these chess formulaic openings, strategies, etc? I am a new learner in Chess.
Interesting and fun. Thanks.
innovative video!
43:10 What happens if black plays atari on 5-14, white connects, then trumpet connector? Also I was waiting for someone to suggest taisha in the top left.
Any chance of a video on tengen openings?
Legend
50:46 I think the kosumi was the right move but a kosumi is not about building territory, its about building strength.
What's the difference between a 7D and a 7P?
I'm still pretty confused. So is a dan player just a casual amateur (by technicality) then while a pro is someone who, well, plays professionally?
The Best Name That part I knew.
Still, the ranks confused me.
They get 1p by pass the professional exam. Then pro dan get level up (2p,3p,etc) by winning pro league/tournament.
So once they get pro, actually they are all about the same level (in amateur scale). Even 10p will find it hard to give 2 handicap game to 1p (sometime they do play reversed/no komi).
There was an 2p or 3p whom playing internet go. I am sure he winning about 8 of 10 games against the strongest amateur (7-9d)
I don't see a 10p losing to anything lower than 6p without being careless, haha, but I'm sure it's happened!
I don't know much about the game, but it's very fun to learn
CiciColino hm, learn something new every day
cool
question 1: how strong are you? question 2: do i hear rain in the background? i mean it's seattle but i was just wondering
At twenty minutes that bottom right corner looks huge and his shape on the side looks weak and under utilized. Just save the pressing stone and you're good it would seem.
@1:00:45 you talk about a lot of points in the mid low part for black. Sure, in the great scheme of things, you did prevented white from getting massive there. But i dont see the points while its white's turn. I see S13 so bright that blinds me.
I dont think black dies there, i dont know, im not that advanced, but i give black 5 points at the base with decent play at most.
What 's so funny?
I hope Mr.Sibicky doesn't get offended, but he acts kind of arrogantly when presenting these lectures. Needs to be more humble, and to sound less like a know-it-all.
dude - he's lecturing americans not asians! he can sound as definitive as he wants in front of these people !
StopFear thats what i thought at first but come on, its a competitive activity and instilling drive and conviction can be good
+StopFear I find his lectures fascinating and precise, if he did these lectures formally, I would feel like i'm sitting in the class and it would be so boring
I find this comment really strange. Nick doesn't seem even the slightest bit arrogant to me. Obviously, he's the teacher here -- it's a matter of fact that he's a significantly stronger player than the other people in the room, and that's why everyone is there. If someone suggests a move, it's pretty much his job in this situation to point out whether it's good or bad and to explain why. I think he does a really decent job of that. He's always willing to look at a move that a student suggests and show what would happen.
In this video, he's also presenting teaching games which he had with Yilun Yang who is again much stronger than he is. He's relating the review of those games, so if he says that a move of his was strong, he not only has his explanation of why, but he's also discussed it with a 7 dan pro beforehand. Nick points out plenty of his own mistakes here too, so it doesn't really make sense how one could call it arrogant.
How can he be arrogant when he is showing his own mistakes?